Stories of bullying

Hello fellow bloggers,

I have created my first ever video, (its not the best) but you have to start somewhere. I created this video using Mozilla Popcorn, that was a lot of fun and a lot of difficulty. So i used wikipedia links to define Bullying and Amanda Todd, one video found on youtube by Shane koyczan- To this day project and a newspaper article by the called Rehtaeh Parsons Suicide: Bullying victims in Canada are Mounting. Is anyone Listening?This is also where I found the pictures of all the victims of bullying. I created a whole bunch of texts throughout the video which I found the most difficult to do just with timing and such.

Well I hope you enjoy the video

ps. I couldn’t get the video to embed into my post for some reason but the link should work fine.



Molcho M., Craig W., Due P., Pickett W., Harel-fisch Y., Overpeck, M., and HBSC Bullying Writing Group. Cross-national time trends in bullying behaviour 1994-2006: findings from Europe and North America. International Journal of Public Health. 2009, 54 (S2): 225-234

Cotroneo, C. (2013). Rehtaeh Parsons Suicide: Bullying Victims In Canada Are Mounting. Is Anyone Listening? Huffpost Impact Canada. Retrieved from



Summative: Producing and Consuming Online Content

First I’d like to thank all my readers for their comments on my previous post. I found that a majority of the comments agree that current copyright laws are restrictive and overbearing for producers. They minimize the creativity of users wanting to obtain access to produce new content. This is because professional producers want to gain profit through copyright laws before enabling users to create something of their own. The idea like many before, was out for public use, creators would recycle the idea creating something innovative out on the internet. The problem was that professional producers would enable copyright laws to prevent an economic downfall from their product.

This has been a repeated process throughout history as Ferguson mentioned that many professional producers once used content through public domains in order to create a new product in which many users do. The whole process of obtaining, modifying and creating content was available through equal access to them. Taking that away from users today through these laws inhibits creativity and can slow down producing innovative ideas that can change the world.              

As mentioned through comments from the previous post, I also believe that corporations control so much of the content that those with similar ideas won’t have the rights to it because of these laws. As Ferguson mentioned that many times more than one person had similar ideas throughout history, however one had gotten a patent before the other getting all the credit for the same idea. I think these laws are overbearing and prevent people from producing content online. That can be reason to why there are so little producers and so many more consumers because of these restrictive laws. Once restrictive copyright laws and patents lessen, users will be able to produce content more freely and be able to engage with online media.

Producing and Consuming Online Content

The internet has an ever impacting role on those who consume and produce content on the web. There are two vague content producers including everyone in the user-generated  group and those big corporation media-generators. However, the lines that separated the two groups are fading and both seem to be producing material that can’t be differentiated. Both content producers are generating culture among the same sites (ie. Youtube) making it harder to differentiate between the two. According to Ferguson his documentary “Everything is a remix”  generally states corporate companies are “remixing” old content through recycling ideas/content through technological convergence and call it their own through copyright laws. User-generated content relies on media convergence as well however; corporations are becoming strict through media ownership. Jenkins mentions that we as “consumers are learning how to use these different media technologies to bring the flow of media more fully under their control and to interact with other users” (37).  I believe that media convergence is not only for big corporations to own but also for everyone to consume and recycle in order for a technological shift.

                I am more of a consumer than a producer of content. Being an internet junkie, I am on it for many hours in a day consuming everything from mostly user-generated content such as social media websites (Facebook, twitter), emails, YouTube and forums (reddit). I generally do not produce any content forego the random tweets and posts on social media websites; I generally take advantage of the peer-to-peer content that is already distributed. This is due to a robust amount of other users taking advantage of producing content because “social media platforms give users unlimited space for storage and plenty of tools to organize, promote and broadcast their thoughts, opinions, behaviours and media to others” (Manovich, 8). Corporations are encouraging user-generated content to be produced even though the enforcement of copyright laws. Many users use the space that is available on the internet and try to create an original thought to distribute content on the internet. However, this can be proved by Manovich that only “between 0.5 % – 1.5 % users of most popular social media sites (Flickr, YouTube, Wikipedia) contributed their own content” (2). I think that corporations shouldn’t enforce ownership of media with all the available space among websites were we can produce content on because big corporations are generally doing the same thing as user generated content is being produced.


Jenkins, H. (2004) The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence  International Journal of Cultural Studies March 2004 7: 33-43

Manovich, l. (2008) The Practice of Everyday (Media) Life: From Mass Consumption to Mass Cultural Production?

Ferguson, K. (2011). Everything is a remix. Vimeo


I can cite Wikipedia?


WhatAboutWikipedia 300x214 What about Wikipedia

          Controversy among Wikipedia has always been an issue for most scholars. The use of Wikipedia has been prohibited by academic standards. This is due to Wikipedia allowing anyone to edit their articles. As Giles mentions, “critics have raised concerns about the site’s increasing influence, questioning whether multiple, unpaid editors can match paid professionals for accuracy” (900). I believe that they can and will since it’s one of the top 40 most visited sites of the world (Jensen, 2012) with over thousands of articles on a variety of information available for anyone and everyone to see for free.        

            The lack of professional writers doesn’t mean Wikipedia isn’t credible. Royal and Kapila mention that a bias is created when some entries that are typically interests that youth follow have more information regarding them the other articles per say (2005). It can be considered biased however, those articles preferred more by youth would be more credible meaning many users will perfect and edit the articles to capture the most accurate, objective information available.

            A point by Royal and Kapila mentioned that the “assumption that more writers and editors are better than fewer and that the community will develop and monitor content in a manner that is improved over that of traditional information publishing” (139, 2005). I agree with this, and this manner is an improved way of informing the public in a variety of topics available. This usually may not be the best because of increasing vandalism by anonymous users. In some cases, some articles on Wikipedia are semi-protected. The article I looked at on bullying was semi-protected because it’s probably seen a vast amount of vandalism making the articles foundation unchangeable without a user ID to Wikipedia. This just ensures that any content entered through Wikipedia is now monitored making it more credible and free of vandalism.

            The formation of the article begins with a whole community of users “talking” about the article in order to improve its foundation. One section that caught my eye while reading about bullying was a section on “characteristics of targets” and eventually moving into characteristics of bullies, bystanders etc. Numerous contributions to the conversation are input through re-defining bullying. Some suggestions included that bullying is closely related to narcissistic behaviour and many others believe that it is a social construct of society. The users sorted out the different views coming up with the correct point in which I also believe that it was a social construct of society. The way the users

            The users talk about the topic of characteristics in a democratic way. Every user behaves in an equal manner meaning they don’t assert their academic standing to each other while in the forums. Every point made is discussed in a reasonable manner with the intent to make the information a better resource for everyone to use. When others agree with one users point, it is asked that references are provided in order to verify the point.

            The information users were stating was relatively objective as Jenson mentions that editors “pride themselves in adhering to Wikipedia’s NPOV rule” (1169). In which I found they did enforce that rule even though one user stated a personal opinion however he acknowledged that personal opinion was not allowed therefore keeping Wikipedia’s NPOV rule.

            When following to see whether the information was sourced appropriately, I found that some had links going directly to the site or cited appropriately. There were however other sites that were questionable as to whether the information was there because links were broken. This questions the credibility of the information provided on the article. I believe that these sites may have re-arranged  information because looking at the dates that some articles have been written are over 2 years old and websites can go through maintenances changing information. I recommend that editors need to just go through articles to update sources that are broken to ensure credibility of the article.

            Providing a fast source of information for a robust variety of topics, Wikipedia tries to reference, validate and certify credibility in the information written on. A collaborated, unified community is created and gathers to ensure unbiased information, thanks to Wikipedia’s NPOV rule, provides credibility and valid information for everyone to use. I believe that the article I chose on bullying has an interest through the many users that edit it, making it more credible as opposed to other articles. I feel that one should still be wary when using Wikipedia. It is an excellent source for valid information however mistakes will be made and that one should still verify with the links that are provided to any statement made on Wikipedia.


Jensen, R. (2012). Military History on the Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights the War of 1812Journal of Military History. 76, 1. pp 1165-1182

Giles. J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to headNature. 438, pp 900-901.

Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 1

Links to other Blogs

Reflecting on Wikipedia: Summative Module 3

As many of us do, we use Wikipedia for its quick reference on information we know not of. We have been told through the education system not to rely on Wikipedia for anything academic related. As I have found out through my previous post “To Wiki or to not Wiki” that many users are the same in which the beginning stages of finding information for research assignments usually, begin with searching on Wikipedia.  This has been reinforced throughout school however; it seems to be changing as I have had one professor state to the class that Wikipedia was an acceptable site for sources to an assignment.

                 In comparison, Britannica may be used more widely than Wikipedia because it employs writers to create there entries. I received a comment in which Britannica is much more academically relevant however, statistics in Giles paper talk for themselves in which the results prove that the two encyclopedias are similar in mistakes regardless of the writer’s education level.  There’s so much discussion and editing that happens that mistakes will eventually be fixed. The one thing that I would like to see fixed is adding more references on Wikipedia I have seen pages where references are missing and Wikipedia lets it be known to users.  One commentator said the Wikipedia team should closely monitor information being posted, I think if they were to do that Wikipedia wouldn’t be free or it would be filled with advertisements everywhere. I think that if there were mistakes other users would be able to identify them and make the necessary changes in order to make it use able again.

                 Wikipedia does well for being a user created encyclopedia. It is a free source of information that people post information about topics they feel passionate about and users work well to collaborate and create something that everyone can access. Being able to create, post, edit and discuss articles on Wikipedia make it a community effort in order to perfect entries on topics users are knowledgeable on. This however can create bias on topics that are covered thoroughly compared to others that are not. This goes back to Dijk and Nieborg’s statistic of only 13% of internet users contribute to creating anything including videos, entries etc. This calls for participation among users to help establish Wikipedia and disable the bias that is there.  Users that have higher education and entries missing on Wikipedia correlate to information that is not on there. There was a statistic that Jensen found 27% of editors were under the age of 21 and 13% were still in high school (2012).

                 When I generally use Wikipedia, I as well begin with it when starting a research assignment. I have found that I can trust most of what I see on Wikipedia but like to make sure with other sources to ensure that the correct information is what I am reading. I feel anyone using any source besides Wikipedia should do this because it makes your research more credible regardless. Over all I am an advocate for Wikipedia and believe it is something that is a good source for information.

To Wiki or to not Wiki…

I was always told when doing homework assignments that Wikipedia was an unreliable source for data or reference for any work being done for school. I found that I usually researched with Wikipedia first to get a general sense of the topic and then focus my research towards scholarly articles after a general idea formed of the topic.  Many professors condemn Wikipedia because the posts were user generated allowing anyone the power to modify the information. That is one of the biggest problems that Wikipedia as an encyclopedia faces in which allows people to criticize its credibility. This is also something that has been reinstated in some of the articles (Giles; Dijk & Nieborg) however the big question now is can we trust the website and communities that build upon it.

 Interesting points came across from Dijk and Nieborg that participation amongst users are the ones that constitute pages such as Wikipedia, Youtube etc. However there are several points they find that argue that mass collaboration is generally out of interest of all users desire to contribute content either out of need to communicate or express oneself creatively. They reveal that “Of those people who use the internet regularly, only 13 percent are actual creators” (861, Dijiek). Not all users on the internet are of the same highly-educated group that contribute intellectual content for others to benefit from, it’s more of them that watch and download content by others (Dijek). This is interesting as companies are trying to insincerely create knowledge through social websites by creating users of social media equivalently to consumers of knowledge through peer to peer notions. This is applies to social sites such as Wikipedia or ones with focused forums (example: game modifications) in which we as users feel the obligation to communicate knowledge to one another because we join these communities similar to our interest. This however is not a bad thing because we receive knowledge free from the usually expensive costs of reading high educated people with the same information as someone without a degree.

 In this article by Royal and Kiplan they explain that Wikipedia is biased because of its policy of allowing any user to put information on the website this is what I believe in as well. However they conduct a study in which they compare it to the Britannica Encyclopedia that had 132 errors in comparison to Wikipedia that had 162 (Giles; Royal & Kiplan). The two encyclopaedias are generally ranging in the same area amongst accuracy. The only problem amongst the encyclopedia was that information amongst topics such as popular culture has vast amount of information in comparison to Belgium politics. This just shows that Wikipedia has references to many articles of varieties however more information may be needed for topics that require. As Royal and Kiplan state “Wikipedia did well on coverage, even in its weakest areas. The areas of law and medicine were particularly lacking, explained by the presence of licensed experts in these fields” (140). This was also true in another articles by Giles in which research was done on two scientific disciplines between the two encyclopaedias. Scientists in that field conducted a blind test in which they peer reviewed the articles and found that both encyclopaedias had that same number of misinterpretations four from each (900, Giles).

 Overall, I find that I might research with Wikipedia more however I feel that professors and teachers will not allow it. It’s a matter of showing them the research to enlighten them on the knowledge that Wikipedia offers to the community for no fee. It will remain one of the first places I will look for when I gather information on any research topic however I will always verify with the sources that is usually posted below on the Wikipedia page in order to ensure that information is correct.


Van Dijk, J. & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media & Society. 11, 5. pp 855-874.

Royal, C. & Kapila, D. (2009). What’s on Wikipedia, and What’s Not . . . ?: Assessing Completeness of Information. Social Science Computer Review. 27, 1. pp 138-148.

Giles. J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to headNature. 438, pp 900-901

Image Reference:

Summative: Repercussions of Online Social Networking

Thanks to all my readers who commented on my previous post on the "Repercussions of online Social networking". I want to further discuss some of the comments left by my readers.

I read a few similar blogs that talked about social networking and their comments on the topic were similar to mine. That the availability of information is at reach for anyone to see. This is also true for potential predators and lurkers. In the case of Facebook, one should not fill out information in the "about me" section regardless of that obligation that social media sites require when creating a profile. Not everyone adds friends and families on Facebook, there are many people (such as myself at one point) that added people that I barely knew just to have a greater number of friends (then I actually have) shown on my profile. This is why it is so important for education and awareness of the internet for children. A lot of parents did not grow up with the internet and have no idea how to use it. Schools should take the responsibility of teaching kids the benefits and risks of social media/ internet usage.

My own ways of protecting my privacy settings on social media networks included limited access to my profiles or "un-tagging" my pictures. There was opposing opinions to whether this was safe or not. This is probably not the best way to ensure protecting my privacy however, in regards to others seeing these pictures, I hope my friends that post these pictures, they don't "friend" random people they don't know. I however cannot impose this rule. I find that if pictures are so ridiculous that they cannot be online, then I kindly ask to not put them up in the first place. However if I find they are appropriate but others may not think the same way then I un-tag myself. This is what one of my readers mentioned about the idea of privacy being subjective.